JimsGX

I took out the front Arnott struts on my 91 LS today because I was having problems with them clunking and groaning after 5k miles.

When I disconnected the Arnott UCA's from the knuckle, I found that the UCA ball joint boots on BOTH sides were severely torn. I've had the Arnott UCA's in for a couple of years now and they've worked well up to this point. I wonder if Arnott will honor their lifetime warranty on these? Has anyone else with these UCA's checked them lately? Both of mine are torn on the inside and in the exact same place (on the strut side of the UCA). I taped them up for now, but that won't last long...

bicol-ini

last month my UCA on my 96 went bad clunking when car hits bumps and potholes upon inspection boots were torn in half and filleed with debris, also the part were its bolted to frame kind of lose with rubber deterioration, called them and sent me a new pair, but theyll charge your credit card first once they recievd the old part they credit me back entire cost including shipping, down side is youve got to do it every two years, its a pain but lifetime warranty as theyve said, unitl these chinese made UCA made progress on the materials,

JimsGX

Thanks... I just found my original sales receipt. They haven't been installed as long as I thought. I placed my order for them on 4/22/09, so I've had them installed for 14 months.

Asia-H.T.

iTrader: (9)

An Acquintance has the same problem, within a year

fencera

I had exactly that problem within a few months of installing them. I got a new set from them with no problems (although they did claim to have never heard of the problem before). What a cheap piece to have go wrong...a major inconvenience for everyone over a $1 boot.

Anyone have any ideas if we can just replace the boots with something better?

On second thought maybe one could just take the old still good boots of the OEM control arms and put them on the arnott ones... they've lasted 20 years afterall...

skperformance

iTrader: (6)

that usually comes from the suspension fully compressing and hitting the upper fender .
It then cuts the boots on the inside. Lowered cars or weak suspension cause it.

JimsGX

I baby my old LS... In my case it's caused by a poor quality boot on the UCA's ball joint. My car isn't lowered and it's had brand new struts and springs on it. Every last suspension part has been replaced on the front of my car. I'm hoping to find a better quality boot that I can use to replace the ones they ship with, because other than the inferior boot, the bushings and ball joints in the UCA's seem to be holding up well.

fencera

If you manage to find some, please let us know where you got them! I too replaced my springs/struts and almost all of my front suspension components (not lowered) when I replaced the UCAs and still had these lousy boots fail.

Frustrating! The rest of the arm seems to be well made...

JimsGX

Will do...

JimsGX

Update on the Arnott UCA's... The UCA replacements for the torn boots were on back order, but I received my free replacements earlier this week. The rubber ball joint boots on the new ones look like they have what may be a Toyota part number embossed into them. The part number is: 43324-50010

A google search of this number didn't find any useful information. I checked ******* as well. If it is an OEM boot, I doubt its available to purchase as a separate part.

JimsGX

Another update... Started installing the replacement Arnott UCA's this morning. Drivers side first. The taper on the stud of the upper ball joint of the new arms they shipped is different than the original Arnott UCA's I bought 1.5 years ago. The diameter of the taper is smaller, so the taper never seats in the knuckle. The nut makes up all the way to the end of the threads. To get the torque to 48ft.lbs on the nut, which is the OEM spec, below is what it ends up looking like. (sorry for the crummy pic quality)...

I'm glad I'm not paying a mechanic to do this work or I'd be PO'd...

I have a digital readout micrometer, so I checked the taper dimensions of the original Arnott UCA and the one they just shipped. Here are the results:

Original Arnott UCA: Taper goes from 12.98mm to 14.60mm...
New Arnott UCA: Taper goes from 12.95mm to 14.0mm...

.60mm makes all the difference in the world in this case.

So now what? Other than calling Arnott, any suggestions on a reliable way of adding back .60 to .75mm to the taper so the stud doesn't make up all the way and the cotter pin actually has the ability to do its job?

lexuslspro

These stories remind me of Scantech parts for Volvo.

Och

iTrader: (3)

Why do you put your car and your life at risk by installing these cheap, low quality suspension parts? Do you realize what the consequences might be should they break on highway speed?

Scorny

iTrader: (3)

What will you suggest ? I was contemplating on these Anotts myself for next month.
I will not mind OEM shocks but buying these things from a dealer here in Canada(Ontario) is like giving away your left NUT.....sigh.
I'm waiting for some $cash$(maybe $1000) by the end of next month,hopefully,so that will be my budget.
Your inputs will be appreciated.

JimsGX

In the case of front UCA's on the 1st Gen, it's strictly economics. The OEM UCA's are one of the most overpriced OEM components on the car for what they are... They list out for around $720 each and you can buy them online for around $560 each... The Arnott UCA's are $200 for the pair compared to $1100+ for the OEM.

I'm sure you've considered and maybe even installed aftermarket suspension parts in your cars before. Maybe because of the OEM replacement cost, or as a performance enhancement. Sometimes these things don't work out as planned.